Pascal Geldsetzer1, Jennifer Manne-Goehler1,2, Michaela Theilmann3, Justine I Davies4,5, Ashish Awasthi6, Sebastian Vollmer1,3, Lindsay M Jaacks1,7, Till Bärnighausen1,8,9, Rifat Atun1. 1. Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Economics & Centre for Modern Indian Studies, University of Goettingen, Göttingen, Germany. 4. MRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit, School of Public Health, Education Campus, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 5. Centre for Global Health, King's College London, London, England. 6. Indian Institute of Public Health, Gandhinagar, India. 7. Public Health Foundation of India, Delhi NCR, India. 8. Institute of Public Health, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany. 9. Africa Health Research Institute, Mtubatuba, South Africa.
Abstract
Importance: Understanding how diabetes and hypertension prevalence varies within a country as large as India is essential for targeting of prevention, screening, and treatment services. However, to our knowledge there has been no prior nationally representative study of these conditions to guide the design of effective policies. Objective: To determine the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension in India, and its variation by state, rural vs urban location, and individual-level sociodemographic characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cross-sectional, nationally representative, population-based study carried out between 2012 and 2014. A total of 1 320 555 adults 18 years or older with plasma glucose (PG) and blood pressure (BP) measurements were included in the analysis. Exposures: State, rural vs urban location, age, sex, household wealth quintile, education, and marital status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Diabetes (PG level ≥126 mg/dL if the participant had fasted or ≥200 mg/dL if the participant had not fasted) and hypertension (systolic BP≥140 mm Hg or diastolic BP≥90 mm Hg). Results: Of the 1 320 555 adults, 701 408 (53.1%) were women. The crude prevalence of diabetes and hypertension was 7.5% (95% CI, 7.3%-7.7%) and 25.3% (95% CI, 25.0%-25.6%), respectively. Notably, hypertension was common even among younger age groups (eg, 18-25 years: 12.1%; 95% CI, 11.8%-12.5%). Being in the richest household wealth quintile compared with being in the poorest quintile was associated with only a modestly higher probability of diabetes (rural: 2.81 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.53-3.08 and urban: 3.47 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.03-3.91) and hypertension (rural: 4.15 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.68-4.61 and urban: 3.01 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.38-3.65). The differences in the probability of both conditions by educational category were generally small (≤2 percentage points). Among states, the crude prevalence of diabetes and hypertension varied from 3.2% (95% CI, 2.7%-3.7%) to 19.9% (95% CI, 17.6%-22.3%), and 18.0% (95% CI, 16.6%-19.5%) to 41.6% (95% CI, 37.8%-45.5%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Diabetes and hypertension prevalence is high in middle and old age across all geographical areas and sociodemographic groups in India, and hypertension prevalence among young adults is higher than previously thought. Evidence on the variations in prevalence by state, age group, and rural vs urban location is critical to effectively target diabetes and hypertension prevention, screening, and treatment programs to those most in need.
Importance: Understanding how diabetes and hypertension prevalence varies within a country as large as India is essential for targeting of prevention, screening, and treatment services. However, to our knowledge there has been no prior nationally representative study of these conditions to guide the design of effective policies. Objective: To determine the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension in India, and its variation by state, rural vs urban location, and individual-level sociodemographic characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cross-sectional, nationally representative, population-based study carried out between 2012 and 2014. A total of 1 320 555 adults 18 years or older with plasma glucose (PG) and blood pressure (BP) measurements were included in the analysis. Exposures: State, rural vs urban location, age, sex, household wealth quintile, education, and marital status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Diabetes (PG level ≥126 mg/dL if the participant had fasted or ≥200 mg/dL if the participant had not fasted) and hypertension (systolic BP≥140 mm Hg or diastolic BP≥90 mm Hg). Results: Of the 1 320 555 adults, 701 408 (53.1%) were women. The crude prevalence of diabetes and hypertension was 7.5% (95% CI, 7.3%-7.7%) and 25.3% (95% CI, 25.0%-25.6%), respectively. Notably, hypertension was common even among younger age groups (eg, 18-25 years: 12.1%; 95% CI, 11.8%-12.5%). Being in the richest household wealth quintile compared with being in the poorest quintile was associated with only a modestly higher probability of diabetes (rural: 2.81 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.53-3.08 and urban: 3.47 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.03-3.91) and hypertension (rural: 4.15 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.68-4.61 and urban: 3.01 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.38-3.65). The differences in the probability of both conditions by educational category were generally small (≤2 percentage points). Among states, the crude prevalence of diabetes and hypertension varied from 3.2% (95% CI, 2.7%-3.7%) to 19.9% (95% CI, 17.6%-22.3%), and 18.0% (95% CI, 16.6%-19.5%) to 41.6% (95% CI, 37.8%-45.5%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Diabetes and hypertension prevalence is high in middle and old age across all geographical areas and sociodemographic groups in India, and hypertension prevalence among young adults is higher than previously thought. Evidence on the variations in prevalence by state, age group, and rural vs urban location is critical to effectively target diabetes and hypertension prevention, screening, and treatment programs to those most in need.
Authors: R M Anjana; R Pradeepa; M Deepa; M Datta; V Sudha; R Unnikrishnan; A Bhansali; S R Joshi; P P Joshi; C S Yajnik; V K Dhandhania; L M Nath; A K Das; P V Rao; S V Madhu; D K Shukla; T Kaur; M Priya; E Nirmal; S J Parvathi; S Subhashini; R Subashini; M K Ali; V Mohan Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2011-09-30 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: David B Sacks; Mark Arnold; George L Bakris; David E Bruns; Andrea Rita Horvath; M Sue Kirkman; Ake Lernmark; Boyd E Metzger; David M Nathan Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Jennifer Manne-Goehler; Rifat Atun; Andrew Stokes; Alexander Goehler; Dismand Houinato; Corine Houehanou; Mohamed Msaidie Salimani Hambou; Benjamin Longo Mbenza; Eugène Sobngwi; Naby Balde; Joseph Kibachio Mwangi; Gladwell Gathecha; Paul Waweru Ngugi; C Stanford Wesseh; Albertino Damasceno; Nuno Lunet; Pascal Bovet; Demetre Labadarios; Khangelani Zuma; Mary Mayige; Gibson Kagaruki; Kaushik Ramaiya; Kokou Agoudavi; David Guwatudde; Silver K Bahendeka; Gerald Mutungi; Pascal Geldsetzer; Naomi S Levitt; Joshua A Salomon; John S Yudkin; Sebastian Vollmer; Till Bärnighausen Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 32.069
Authors: Loes Jaspers; Veronica Colpani; Layal Chaker; Sven J van der Lee; Taulant Muka; David Imo; Shanthi Mendis; Rajiv Chowdhury; Wichor M Bramer; Abby Falla; Raha Pazoki; Oscar H Franco Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2014-12-21 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Lara Jung; Jan-Walter De Neve; Simiao Chen; Jennifer Manne-Goehler; Lindsay M Jaacks; Daniel J Corsi; Ashish Awasthi; S V Subramanian; Sebastian Vollmer; Till Bärnighausen; Pascal Geldsetzer Journal: Data Brief Date: 2019-09-13
Authors: Mohammed E Al-Sofiani; Susan Langan; Alka M Kanaya; Namratha R Kandula; Belinda L Needham; Catherine Kim; Dhananjay Vaidya; Sherita H Golden; Kimberly A Gudzune; Clare J Lee Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Madeline R Farron; Mohammed U Kabeto; Aparajit Ballav Dey; Joyita Banerjee; Deborah A Levine; Kenneth M Langa Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Gene Bukhman; Ana O Mocumbi; Rifat Atun; Anne E Becker; Zulfiqar Bhutta; Agnes Binagwaho; Chelsea Clinton; Matthew M Coates; Katie Dain; Majid Ezzati; Gary Gottlieb; Indrani Gupta; Neil Gupta; Adnan A Hyder; Yogesh Jain; Margaret E Kruk; Julie Makani; Andrew Marx; J Jaime Miranda; Ole F Norheim; Rachel Nugent; Nobhojit Roy; Cristina Stefan; Lee Wallis; Bongani Mayosi Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 79.321